My feelings about Bloomberg are mixed. On the one hand, he's been a good fit for New York City, which is the most important thing (seeing as how he's the mayor and all). He's smart, he's pragmatic, and he's an excellent administrator who gets things done without the flamboyance and general wackiness that characterized Giuliani's last few years in office.
On the other hand, Bloomberg's nanny-state tendencies irk me quite a bit, mainly because he tends to advocate for these policies outside of the city limits. I would have much less of an issue with that aspect of Bloomberg's politics if he limited his nanny-state policies to the five boroughs. I favor local control; and most of the "locals," in the case of New York City, happen to favor the idea of government as babysitter.
If the residents of a city want high taxes, big government, and nanny-state policies (within the limits of the Constitution, of course), fine. Those who don't like it can move elsewhere (as I did). But I have issues when local elected officials try to nationalize those policies beyond their own elected jurisdictions.
-Rich
